When does an Arizona school district advisory committee have to follow the Open Meeting Law, and is it OK for a board to meet with members two-or-three at a time before a public meeting?

Plain-English summary

Arizona's Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et seq.) requires public bodies to deliberate and decide in public. Two recurring questions came out of investigations at Scottsdale Unified and Paradise Valley Unified: when does the OML reach a school district advisory committee, and is it OK for a superintendent to brief board members in small subgroups before a public meeting?

The school districts' own counsel had read § 38-431(1) narrowly, saying that an advisory committee is only subject to the OML if the governing board affirmatively created it. The AG agreed that board involvement in creation is a critical factor, but disagreed that it's the only one. Membership of the committee (especially how many board members sit on it), the committee's purpose, and ongoing board involvement after formation all matter. A committee a superintendent originally formed solo can become subject to the OML if the board later starts using it to develop policy recommendations.

On 2x2x1 meetings, where a superintendent meets separately with two board members, then two more, then one, the districts' counsel had argued the practice was fine absent evidence of intent to discuss matters among a quorum. The AG agreed that 2x2x1 is not a per-se violation, but reaffirmed that Scottsdale's specific use of the format violated the OML. The AG's framing: providing information is fine; providing information about an upcoming board decision in a subgroup format that effectively avoids public deliberation is splintering the quorum. The line is fact-specific.

What this means for you

For school board members

Don't assume that a committee escapes the OML just because the superintendent or staff put it together. If you've been asked, formally or informally, to direct a committee to develop policy recommendations, that committee likely owes the public open meetings, public minutes, and notice. The same caution applies to any committee where multiple board members sit. Even a committee that started outside the OML can come under it as the board's involvement grows. When in doubt, treat it like a public body and post the meeting.

For 2x2x1 briefings: ask what's actually being discussed. Pure background information on a non-actionable topic is the safest case. Information about a matter the board is about to vote on, especially where the briefer is gauging where members are leaning, is the dangerous case. Even if no member discusses positions with another, "splintering the quorum" can happen when the same information transfer is repeated to a quorum's worth of members in serial meetings.

For superintendents and staff

The opinion treats the superintendent as the load-bearing figure in many of these arrangements. Your interactions with board members, even one-on-one or in small groups, can drag a committee under the OML if you're acting as a conduit for the board's deliberation. Document the purpose of each subgroup meeting. If the briefing is informational and not decision-adjacent, say so. If a committee was originally yours but the board has begun directing its work, recognize that the situation has changed and adjust.

For school district attorneys

The AG signals that a single-factor test (board formation) is not enough. The opinion adds three more factors: membership, purpose, and subsequent operation. When you advise on whether a committee must comply with the OML, run all four. Be especially careful when multiple board members sit on a committee, even if their participation is "informal." On 2x2x1, the AG agrees with the case-by-case framing but pushes back on any reading that the format is presumptively safe. Your default advice should probably be that 2x2x1 briefings on agenda-bound matters are presumptively risky.

For parents, journalists, and advocacy groups

If you suspect a school district is using staff committees or sub-quorum meetings to do work the public should be observing, the AG's reading of the OML gives you more to work with. The opinion explicitly rejects the narrow reading that only board-created committees are subject to the OML. Look at how a committee operates over time, who its members are, and whether the board has assigned it work. Complaints can go to the AG's Office of Open Government, which investigates OML cases.

Common questions

What is a 2x2x1 meeting?

A 2x2x1 is a format where a superintendent meets board members in subgroups, two members at a time, plus a one-on-one with the fifth member, totaling three meetings. It's used to brief a five-member board without convening a quorum. Scottsdale used it before public meetings, which the AG had previously found violated the OML in that specific instance.

Did the AG say 2x2x1 meetings are illegal?

No. The AG was clear that 2x2x1 is not a per-se violation of the OML. The legal question depends on context: what's discussed, how close the board is to deciding the matter, whether the format effectively prevents the public from observing what the board is reasoning through. The AG reaffirmed that Scottsdale's specific use of the format had violated the OML.

Can a superintendent form a staff committee that recommends policy without OML compliance?

Yes, generally, if the board hasn't directed or closely shaped the committee's work. The AG draws an analogy: the superintendent and a committee are no different than a constituent recommending a policy idea to the board. But once the board takes the wheel, the analysis changes.

What's "splintering the quorum"?

It's a doctrine that prohibits public officials from having serial or separate discussions with a majority of a public body's members, where the cumulative effect is that the board is deliberating outside a public meeting. The AG's Agency Handbook § 7.5.2 covers it. The 2x2x1 risk is exactly this: even if no quorum is in one room, the briefing pattern can functionally substitute for a quorum's deliberation.

Is this opinion binding on school boards?

AG opinions are persuasive authority. The AG's Office of Open Government does enforce the OML and has investigative authority, so an opinion that says "this practice was a violation" carries practical weight even if it's not a court ruling. School boards that ignore it accept the risk that the AG will find a future violation in similar circumstances.

What was the 2024 disposition of Scottsdale's case?

Per the opinion's background, the AG investigated complaints against Scottsdale, found some advisory committee uses violated the OML and some did not, and found the 2x2x1 practice violated the OML. The AG declined to impose penalties beyond corrective action because the violations were unintentional. The amended opinion, issued June 23, 2025, refines the legal framework but doesn't reopen the disposition.

Background and statutory framework

A.R.S. § 15-253(B) is the parallel to § 15-1448(H) used in community college matters: it gives the AG authority to review and revise legal opinions prepared by school district counsel. That's the procedural posture of this opinion: counsel for two districts had submitted opinions on OML compliance, and the AG affirmed in part and revised in part.

Substantively, the OML is in A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et seq. The key definitions are in § 38-431. "Advisory committee" is defined in § 38-431(1); "public body" in § 38-431(6); "meeting" and related terms in § 38-431(3)-(4). § 38-431.01 is the operative provision requiring public meetings. The AG's analysis here is doctrinally important because it reads § 38-431(1) and § 38-431(6) together: a board can't avoid the OML by formally placing a committee outside the board's "creation" if the board is in fact directing its work through other channels.

The 2x2x1 analysis draws from the AG's Agency Handbook §§ 7.5.1 through 7.5.3, which set out how board members may gather information independently and may discuss matters with another single member, but cannot use serial conversations to function as a quorum.

Citations

• A.R.S. § 15-253(B) (AG review of school district counsel opinions)
• A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et seq. (Open Meeting Law)
• A.R.S. § 38-431(1) (advisory committee definition)
• A.R.S. § 38-431(3)-(4) (meeting and related definitions)
• A.R.S. § 38-431(6) (public body definition)
• A.R.S. § 38-431.01 (open meetings requirement)
• Ariz. Att'y Gen. Agency Handbook §§ 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 (splintering the quorum guidance)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i24-004-r23-021-amended
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I24-004%20%28R23-021%29%20Amended.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Jennifer MacLennan, Gust Rosenfeld PLC, on behalf of Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 and Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-253(B), this opinion affirms in part and revises in part the opinions that you prepared for the Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 ("SUSD") and Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69 ("PVUSD") (collectively, "the Districts") regarding the application of Open Meeting Law to school district advisory committees and communications with governing board members. Those opinions are attached hereto as Appendix A.

Background

The Attorney General's Office received complaints alleging that Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48's use of certain advisory committees and 2x2x1 meetings[1] with governing board members violates the Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et seq. Following an investigation, the Office concluded that some of the District's uses of advisory committees had violated the Open Meeting Law while others had not. The Office also concluded that the District's use of 2x2x1 meetings violated the Open Meeting Law. The Office also determined, however, that all violations were unintentional and declined to impose penalties beyond corrective action.

Shortly thereafter, counsel representing Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 and Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69 submitted legal opinions to this Office for review under A.R.S. § 15-253(B) regarding the parameters of the Open Meeting Law with respect to school district committees and 2x2x1 meetings. Those submissions conclude that "there must be evidence that a board was actively involved in the creation of a committee for the committee to be a board advisory committee under A.R.S. § 38-431(1)," and that, "without further evidence of intent to discuss among a quorum, providing the board with updated information in a 2x2x1 [meeting format] does not violate the OML."

The Office agrees with the submitted opinions regarding the application of the Open Meeting Law to school district advisory committees, but adds a few points of emphasis and clarification here. Regarding a district's use of 2x2x1 meetings, the Office revises the submitted opinions and wishes to make clear here that while the use of 2x2x1 meetings (or similar formats) is not a per se violation of the Open Meeting Law, whether a particular meeting format with smaller groups of members violates the Open Meeting Law depends on the particular facts.

Analysis

Advisory Committees

The opinions you prepared for the Districts focus on advisory committees, and conclude that under A.R.S. § 38-431(1), "Board formation of the committee is a prerequisite . . . , whether that formation is by vote, policy or by acts or statements that lead to the conclusion of board intent." Although we generally agree with the opinions you've prepared, we write further to clarify that the circumstances of the committee's formation are not the sole dispositive factor in determining whether a committee must comply with the Open Meeting Law. Other factors that may affect the determination include the circumstances of the committee's membership, purpose, and subsequent operation.

Your analysis focuses on the definition of "advisory committee" in A.R.S. § 38-431(1) to conclude that "there must be evidence that a board was actively involved in the creation of a committee for the committee to be a board advisory committee." Although we agree that board involvement in the "creation" or "formation" of a committee is a critical component of an "advisory committee" under § 38-431(1), this language must be read in conjunction with the broader definition of "public body" in § 38-431(6). The Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by "informally" forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public. For that reason, we caution against an overly narrow reading of the law focused exclusively on the circumstances of a committee's creation.

For example, we agree that a committee established by a district superintendent rather than the governing board is not subject to the Open Meeting Law merely because the work of the committee may result in the superintendent bringing a recommendation to the governing board. A superintendent committee, for example, may voluntarily form recommendations to the board on matters of policy for which the superintendent sees a need. If the superintendent is not developing such a proposal in response to a directive (or other close involvement) of the board in the exercise of this governance function, the Open Meeting Law typically will not apply. Indeed, absent any board involvement at all, the superintendent and his or her committee are no different than any individual constituent, district employee, or group of constituents or employees, all of whom could undoubtedly recommend that the board consider a particular policy without being subject to the Open Meeting Law in their deliberations before approaching the board.

On the other hand, if a committee initially formed by a superintendent is subsequently tasked by the governing board with developing further policy recommendations for the board's consideration, the committee's subsequent work on that issue would need to be conducted in public meetings. Put simply, the degree and type of the board's involvement matters, and it is not just the initial moment at which the committee is formed that is relevant to the analysis.

Similarly, as you note in the appended opinions, while the mere fact that two board members sit on a committee is not in and of itself dispositive when determining whether the committee is subject to the Open Meeting Law, the membership of a committee is a relevant factor. As you correctly observe, the presence of multiple board members heightens the risk that a committee will be engaged in the proposal, discussion, or deliberation of board matters, in which case the Open Meeting Law should apply. See A.R.S. § 38-431(3)-(4); id. § 38-431.01.

Accordingly, we approve of the submitted opinions but caution that any Open Meeting Law analysis requires a holistic view of all relevant factors, including but not limited to the circumstances of the committee's formation, membership, purpose, and subsequent operation.

2x2x1 Meetings

The opinion you prepared for SUSD also addresses the use of "2x2x1 meetings." This term refers to the District's practice of holding three separate meetings with the five governing

board members to allow the superintendent to present them with information in advance of a public meeting.

As you note, this Office previously concluded that SUSD's use of such meetings violated the Open Meeting Law. The Office's disposition notes that the 2x2x1 model utilized by SUSD risks improperly "splintering the quorum" by permitting "separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members." See Ariz. Att'y Gen. Agency Handbook § 7.5.2. ("Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members.").

The opinion you have submitted questions the correctness of this disposition because it "does not account for the requirement that each potential violation be examined on a case-by-case basis." We respectfully disagree with that characterization of the prior disposition and wish to make clear here that a case-by-case evaluation is required. In its prior disposition, the Office did not conclude that all 2x2x1 meetings (or similar meeting structures involving a subset of board members) are per se prohibited by the Open Meeting Law. Rather, the Office examined the particular circumstances of SUSD's practice and concluded that this specific practice, in this specific instance, did not comply with the Open Meeting Law. We reaffirm that position here and find that whether a particular meeting format violates the Open Meeting Law will depend upon the particular circumstances.

We recognize that SUSD and other boards may sometimes benefit from having information presented to board members in a 2x2x1 (or similar) format. And we recognize that merely providing information to board members in that format will not always run afoul of the Open Meeting Law. After all, board members are not prohibited from gathering information independently outside of a public meeting, nor are they prohibited from discussing matters with another board member so long as the discussion does not directly or indirectly involve a quorum of board members. See Ariz. Att'y Gen. Agency Handbook §§ 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3. Furthermore, there are fewer concerns about splintering the quorum or inadvertently preventing public observation of board deliberations if the information presented is not about a matter on which the board is planning to take legal action.

In short, presenting information to board members in a 2x2x1 (or similar) format does not automatically violate open meeting law. Nevertheless, public officials should remain cognizant of ensuring public confidence and endeavor to avoid "actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from public view." Ariz. Att'y Gen. Agency Handbook § 7.5.2. ("Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members.").

Conclusion

We agree with the submitted opinions' conclusions regarding school district advisory committees, subject to the points of clarification made above. We revise the submitted opinions on the subject of 2x2x1 meetings to clarify that although a meeting at which information is provided to less than a quorum of board members is not a per se violation of the Open Meeting Law, the practice should be used carefully to avoid Open Meeting Law violations and to preserve public confidence

Kris Mayes

Attorney General

[1] "2x2x1" meetings refers to the District's practice of holding three separate meetings with the five governing board members to present them with information in advance of a public meeting. Two of the meetings are held with two members, and the third meeting with a single member, hence "2x2x1."